Posts by TonusOH

16

July 25 WT Study ....Moving Out?

by mikeflood in

third study article....as people moved out of jerusalem before the romans attacked on 70 ce...perhaps there are gonna be instructions for us today about us ...leaving possessions and houses...and moving to a different place.!!.

.

maybe that fits on 'receiving instructions that are not sound by a human pointof view' ??

TonusOH

Maybe someone can remind them of the time they encouraged those who were selling possessions and quitting jobs so they could warn everyone about the coming end... in 1975.

10

Trump confirms, the Goal is to ABOLISH the IRS. No More Taxes for Citizens.

by liam in

trump said in another speech, had the citizens never voted democrat, and rinos were more concern about the citizens than lining their own pockets, the government would of had enough money to buy every citizen a home, car, full paid college education, and all social security recipients would be receiving 100k a year.

the trillions of dollars that were stolen by democrats and rinos and given to other countries for transgender surgeries, wars in other countries, and other worthless stuff throughout the years, could have been invested in so many avenues, and american citizens would be the richest people in the entire world and the most innovative.

don’t ever vote democrat again.

TonusOH

You could drastically reduce --if not outright eliminate-- the IRS and still collect taxes. Just simplify the tax code.

Heck, you could probably collect more in taxes while lowering the tax burden for most taxpayers (and keeping the lowest rungs untaxed). You could also more easily make sure 'the rich/corporations pay their fair share.' But the tax code isn't designed for this. It's a massive, byzantine mess that provides lots of employment for the tax prep industry and far too much power for the IRS and whoever wants to misuse it.

No one ever made things more complex because they wanted people to understand it better, or because they wanted it to work more efficiently. Simplify the tax code, and you fix a lot of problems. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that congress wants to fix that particular problem. If politicians do not want to provide the obvious fix for a glaring problem, then they don't see it as a problem. Which means they're either monumentally stupid or perfectly happy with a bad situation.

9

They were trying to spread Transgender ideology, DEI, Green New Deal to the entire World

by liam in

the plan the democrats in the usa were trying to implement world wide was their ideology.

they wanted open borders for every country, they wanted to rid the middle class entirely.

they wanted a small group of people to run the world.

TonusOH

The government of the USA was designed around a bottom-up approach; the states managed their own affairs with limited interference from the federal government, which was small and kept in check by the states. The states would then send representatives to discuss larger issues that affected the nation as a whole and the President was tasked with helping to carry out any directives okayed by congress, as well as being the outward-facing part of our government.

We have spent too long moving power from the states to the federal government and to the executive branch in particular. The idea that so much tax revenue is being spent through "departments" and "programs" with little or no oversight should literally be a crime. The habit of the President using executive orders to bypass our systems of checks and balances has clearly gotten out of hand. And now we have a situation where that excess power granted to the President is the only reason we are finding out about the insane amounts of hidden spending that has been going on for far too long.

Any spending item should be presented to congress to vote on. Period. And it should not be laden down with dozens --if not hundreds-- of earmarks to hide overspending in plain sight. Especially when the added spending is for items that have nothing to do with the original request. They will ask for a modest budget approval for something like building infrastructure or helping the homeless, then they will stuff it full of items that have nothing to do with it. When someone complains about the excess crap that has been added, they are criticized for denying funding for infrastructure or the homeless.

It's no wonder we are operating with runaway deficit spending. They have stripped out the checks and balances and left only a system, one that can and is relentlessly abused by career politicians who can't explain how they have gotten wealthy on a relatively modest congressional salary (although "modest" is probably stretching it).

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: Your next breath is a sign of his benevelence.

OMNIbenevolent. ALL good. If god only did things that we categorize as good, the term would apply. But he doesn't. The Bible has plenty of stories of things he did that we would not categorize as good.

Halcon: It's good question to consider tho. It reveals just how powerless we are next to God.

I must say, you have been presenting an understanding of god that is unlike that of just about every other Christian I've known. Very interesting and even insightful, if incomplete.

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: For God to be God, He must be omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

You previously linked to a definition of god as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. You are adding omnibenevolent now. The problem with that term is that it is pretty easy to show that Yahweh is not omnibenevolent. Thus, he cannot be god.

Halcon: He can't be any more clear that he is responsible for both.

So, we are agreed that he is responsible for evil? For death? For curses? And thus, for suffering?

Halcon: But don't ignore that he also creates life and blessings.

I do not ignore that this god is capable of good. But he is also capable of evil. And he is not bound by human standards of behavior. This is the being you believe you will spend an eternity with. Tell me, how do you know he won't evenutally condemn everyone to suffering?

21

When JW's say they are 'In the truth'...

by Ron.W. in

where did this phrase 'in the truth' come from?.

it's been around as long as i can remember.

is it from the time they were promoting 'the truth shall make you free' book back in 1943?

TonusOH

Based on what is in those books, when they say "the truth" they mean something other than the truth.

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Halcon: that God is capable of both punishment and salvation.

That sounds suspiciously like a personal (human) interpretation. The verse states that god creates evil. It seems more straightforward to read it as god being responsible for evil.

Halcon: The fact that he creates opposites seems to equate to God being confused to you.

Another interesting interpretation, but that is not what I said. When god acts in opposition to what he states, this is what implies that he is confused or wicked.

Halcon: We know at least what his word tells us.

A word that has been constantly interpreted and reinterpreted for almost two thousand years? Are you sure we know what his word tells us?

Halcon: In the mind of many he simply cannot be someone who incites both fear and love, and so they reject him.

A being who is unpredictable and not held back by any recognized moral standards cannot inspire love, only fear. And one is obligated to reject a being who cannot exist as described.

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Halcon: Except his word never states that he is confused or lying about our salvation or punishment.

One can infer this from what is being said and described. I assume that you take this same approach with Isaiah 45:7, for example.

Halcon: 'confused and lying' is your limited human assessment, not God's.

It's a reasonable assessment. Also, if we cannot know the mind of god, then it is presumptuous to claim that it is not his assessment as well. How do you know this?

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Halcon: Unless the scriptures tell you he is confused or lying

The scriptures tell me that he wishes for all to be saved. The scriptures also tell me that he acknowledges that many will not be saved. I think it's fair to say that the scriptures tell me he is confused or lying.

Do you agree that it is not wrong for god to be confused or lying, since he is above human standards of behavior?

135

Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!

by liam in

we get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?

that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.

TonusOH

Halcon: We've established that God is both capable of giving eternal punishment and eternal reward

We both have accepted this as a given.

So, we have a god who designed a universe where people will always suffer. He himself understood this, as he noted that a lot of people would choose the path to destruction. He gave humanity a choice between bliss and suffering, knowing that many would choose suffering. He could have eliminated that choice and offered only bliss. Then, no one would suffer, which is something he claims to want.

So, even if we blame humans for their choices, we still exist in a universe where god knew that most would suffer. And they would suffer for all eternity. There will always be suffering in his universe, regardless of who we blame. Even if we take the step of absolving him for the failure of a population that he designed and created, we have a universe where there will always be suffering. It seems to me that he wants there to be suffering.

We do have the thorny issue of god allowing a condition to exist that is in direct opposition to what he claims to want. Thus, we must assume he is confused or lying. Neither of these is a bad thing, since we cannot judge him on human terms. They simply are. This also is not altered if we accept that his god is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. He can be all of these things and still be beyond our notions of good and evil, so that his duplicity and desire for the suffering of others are true for him, yet not a good or bad thing.